RX 450 h L stolen

[LexusLadLondon]

Hi I got my Lexus R 450 h L stolen from my driveway this morning. Its really scary, as no alarms were triggered when it happened.

Insult to injury, insurance says its OUR fault since it got stolen.

Met police called and said they don't have the bandwidth to investigate, advised to wait for insurance payout and move on.

We had our smart key disabled. How can I prevent it in the future?

[markeyszoo]

Why is it your fault?

[LexusLadLondon]

Well Insurance is treating it as my fault. And they say if a theft happens, that's how they treat it. Does it seem fair or even legal? I have both set of keys, it was parked on my driveway all along.

[Illogan]

Ooh ouch!

That's a real b*gger Sumit!

Is there any 'local' cctv (either commercial or domestic), that may give you a clue?

Edited September 14, 2022 by Illogan

[Ala Larj]

Surely the insurance company needs to prove you were negligent. If they can’t do that they can’t say it’s your fault!

[Moleman]

11 minutes ago, LexusLadLondon said:

Well Insurance is treating it as my fault. And they say if a theft happens, that's how they treat it. Does it seem fair or even legal? I have both set of keys, it was parked on my driveway all along.

Clear insurance company logic, why would we not understand such logic.

Same if your car is hit while parked, you become an increased insurance risk! Insurance company logic.

In both cases there is nothing you could do, but you are now an increased risk.

Go figure!

[Thackeray]

Are you able to say which insurance company this is? Maybe all insurance companies act this way or maybe this one is best avoided for the future.

[NemesisUK]

Who are you insured with and what type of cover do you have? Even the most basic cover includes theft! As long as you declared you keep the car on the driveway normally.

Perhaps another example of 'Can-bus' enabled theft? Gaining access to the car's wiring by removing the wheel arch liner?

[LenT]

4 minutes ago, LexusLadLondon said:

Well Insurance is treating it as my fault. And they say if a theft happens, that's how they treat it. Does it seem fair or even legal? I have both set of keys, it was parked on my driveway all along.

That’s nonsense, Sumit!

Who is this Company?  In providing your Insurance they are entering into a Contract.  They undertake to cover your loss in the event of a theft of the Insured property.  In that event, to claim that they always treat a theft as the Owner’s fault in order to evade liability would be a breach of that Contract.

Unless, of course, one of their Conditions is that they will never pay out in the event of a theft, despite taking a fee to cover against it!  Such a condition would probably be illegal anyway.

I suggest you name this Company and demand a detailed, written explanation for their refusal to fulfil their Contract with you.  If you have a Solicitor, now may be a good time to involve them.

Of course your Insurers do have the right to decline to re-insure you.  And you will probably have to declare this Claim when applying for new insurance.  But you may consider using declarable security devices in future - installing a Tracker, security lighting, wheel clamps and steering locks and such like!

[Moleman]

5 minutes ago, LenT said:

That’s nonsense, Sumit!

Who is this Company?  In providing your Insurance they are entering into a Contract.  They undertake to cover your loss in the event of a theft of the Insured property.  In that event, to claim that they always treat a theft as the Owner’s fault in order to evade liability would be a breach of that Contract.

Unless, of course, one of their Conditions is that they will never pay out in the event of a theft, despite taking a fee to cover against it!  Such a condition would probably be illegal anyway.

I suggest you name this Company and demand a detailed, written explanation for their refusal to fulfil their Contract with you.  If you have a Solicitor, now may be a good time to involve them.

Of course your Insurers do have the right to decline to re-insure you.  And you will probably have to declare this Claim when applying for new insurance.  But you may consider using declarable security devices in future - installing a Tracker, security lighting, wheel clamps and steering locks and such like!

Has the OP said they are not being paid?

I thought he said they treated this as a fault claim rather than a no fault claim which they would claim against another insurance policy. 

[LenT]

44 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Has the OP said they are not being paid?

I thought he said they treated this as a fault claim rather than a no fault claim which they would claim against another insurance policy. 

I think that’s one of the points that the OP could clarify.  Have his insurers refused to pay out on the basis that he was responsible in some way for the theft eg placing the vehicle at risk - or are they paying out but treating it a ‘fault claim’.

Clearly, in this case, they can’t claim against another Insurer.

PS:  I don’t see how the OP’s Insurers can justify their position by stating, apparently, that they ALWAYS treat such thefts as the Owner’s fault!

[Malc]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

security lighting, wheel clamps and steering locks and such like

on the Chairman of the Insurance con- coy preferably

Do   NAME AND SHAME   please

Malc

[Moleman]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

PS:  I don’t see how the OP’s Insurers can justify their position by stating, apparently, that they ALWAYS treat such thefts as the Owner’s fault!

Did they say that, or is this just the OP interpretation of what they think they said?

Or did they state this will be considered a fault claim as mentioned above!

The OP is not that clear about anything so far. 

[LexusLadLondon]

Insurer hasn't declined to pay my claim, not yet anyway, but they are recording it as a fault claim on my file.

I won't name and shame the insurer here, but suffice to say they are not alone in treating a theft crime victim as a party who's at fault.

Thanks Maurice, Mike, Malcom, Len, Peter, Dave , Allen & William for your responses.

 

[steve2006]

No disrespect intended but the Met police seemed to have an unlimited “bandwidth” in certain parts of London yesterday.

Surprised any police force in this country doesn’t use ERNIE to randomly produce a crime number.

[LenT]

13 minutes ago, LexusLadLondon said:

Insurer hasn't declined to pay my claim, not yet anyway, but they are recording it as a fault claim on my file.

So Maurice is certainly correct in that regard.  Presumably they classify it as a ‘fault’ in order to justify an increase in premium on renewal - or a reason to decline insurance.

But are you any more at fault then if, for example, you were mugged in the street and had your watch stolen?  I’d certainly be interested to know in what way you were regarded as being  ‘at fault’.

I’ve never been in that situation, but I did have to claim when an HGV driver wrote off my car on the M25.  I think his insurers were indeed trying to redistribute blame - until I supplied the videos from my dashcam!  After which it was settled in full within days and my later renewal - with the AA - was unaffected.

 

 

[Malc]

do please keep us updated with this saga .  not Saga is it  ?  ....  or is it NFU who are tripppple 5 star rated ......  or those Adendum Flooks guys and their own insurer covering you  ? ( YUK )

Best wishes whatever

Malc

[LexusLadLondon]

Sure thing Malcom. It is a bit of a polava if not a saga. Thanks

[DavidCM]

My experience of the NFU is that they are NFU.

[Bluemarlin]

My understanding is that "fault" or "no fault" has nothing to do with blame or who's fault it is, and it's simply a matter of whether the insurance company can recover the costs from someone. If they can't it's classed as "fault", which doesn't mean they're saying it's your fault.

I've just checked my insurance documents and, whilst it says nothing about "fault" or "non fault", it does say that any claims made for theft of the vehicle, or from the vehicle, won't affect any no claims discount.

So, I think it's just how they classify things, but would ask them if it will affect your no claims discount.

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

My understanding is that "fault" or "no fault" has nothing to do with blame or who's fault it is, and it's simply a matter of whether the insurance company can recover the costs from someone. If they can't it's classed as "fault", which doesn't mean they're saying it's your fault.

I've just checked my insurance documents and, whilst it says nothing about "fault" or "non fault", it does say that any claims made for theft of the vehicle, or from the vehicle, won't affect any no claims discount.

So, I think it's just how they classify things, but would ask them if it will affect your no claims discount.

I think you’ve got it right. Bill.  Checking on an Insurer’s site, there is an explanation of ‘fault, non-fault’.  It confirms that the classification simply depends on whether they can recover the money.

As you say, if a ‘fault’ claim doesn’t affect your NCD then it might seem acceptable.  Although come renewal time, it may well result In a premium increase.  And it’ll have to be declared if you’re looking for cover elsewhere.

I think the least Sumit should expect is his Insurer’s explanation of this use of language. In effect, since the chances of recovering any payout from the thief are remote, the owner is invariably going to be at ‘fault’!

So I’m clearly in error through conflating ‘fault’ and ‘non-fault’ when applying them to, say, a road collision and a theft.  The same terms would appear to have different possible interpretations depending on the results.

[Malc]

good ol' insurers eh ! ............ never their FAULT whatever .....  however incomprehensible their Ts&Cs

Malc

[RXtoNX]

Some insurers now put a clause in their NCD regarding protected NCD, something like “the taking out of protected NCD does not necessarily mean that your premium will not rise in the event of a claim” 

[Moleman]

21 minutes ago, RXtoNX said:

Some insurers now put a clause in their NCD regarding protected NCD, something like “the taking out of protected NCD does not necessarily mean that your premium will not rise in the event of a claim” 

Which is technically correct.

Your NCD can remain the same, but your premium can rise because of their perception of increased risk.

If your NCD is 70% and the premium goes up 10%, you still get a 70% NCD but the premium has increased. 

The fact that they now make this much clearer has I suspect more to do with the fact that people appear to need such things clearly explained these days, or they go on social media complaining about their misunderstanding.

This whole thread is an example.

[Spock66]

16 hours ago, LenT said:

I think the least Sumit should expect is his Insurer’s explanation of this use of language. In effect, since the chances of recovering any payout from the thief are remote, the owner is invariably going to be at ‘fault’!

Plus you will also be liable for the policy excess in the event of a 'fault' claim.